Democrat, Corruptocrat!

Democrats are the friends of big business, Conservatives are the friends of small business. Democrat government inevitably ratchets its way to corruptocracy.

If you don’t agree with this, can we at least agree that Democrats favor highly regulated economies and societies and conservatives don’t?

Let me explain with two examples.

1) The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about how the EPA has decided that milk, because it contains 4% butterfat, should be regulated under the same environmental control standards as petroleum. Consequently, dairy farmers will have to file Federally approve emergency plans on how to deal with “oil spills” and such. Large dairies (some dairies in California milk 10,000 or more cows at a time) will probably be able to comply. Small dairies (goat and sheep milk farms, Vermont dairy producers etc. ) are just out of luck. I happen to know something about the dairy industry – it’s a highly politicized, highly subsidized industry that operates on very thin margins. I’m sure that they will come to an accommodation with the EPA and Federal Government…at a very steep price, politically and $-wise!

2) As it becomes increasingly clear the degree to which Obama Care really is a pig-in-a-poke, there is frantic activity to opt out of it. The numbers of entities that have received waivers from ObamaCare (other than Congress) magically rose from about 200 to 700+ immediately after the SOTU speech. Those entities are large companies and unions on the inside track. The way you get a waiver is to have a lobbyist obtain it on your behalf. Money exchanges hands. Large companies can afford this, small companies…out of luck! If ObamaCare is so great, why the rush by Congress, favored businesses and union to obtain waivers?

Increased regulation is inversely proportional to lobbying activity. The less regulation there is, the less the need to influence government. The more regulation, the more the need to petition the royal aristocracy at a heavy price. The need to petition our government for redress under regulations fostered by our government is a corrupting influence. If you lack influence and can’t make payment, you are out of the equation. Here in Chicagoland, we know all about this. Here is what happens:

Society sediments into three classes: a) an aristocratic Democrat nomenklatura that controls the regulatory and judiciary structures of society; b) a wealthy, economic class that can afford to exchange favors for regulatory exemptions and waivers…at a price; c) a lumpen proletariat, outside of the power structures, imprisoned into forced into regulatory straight-jackets (taxable prey…if you will) that they will never be able to escape unless willing to surrender at the price of their souls. It is this last class that pays the bills for the others. This isn’t new…despite its “progressive” tag, it’s a regression to 19th Century economic “shakedown” realities.

My entire career, I have been a champion of entrepreneurs and small companies. They are vital to our society and economy, as innovators, risk-takers and employers. I would hate to see this glorious period end as we slouch toward third-world corruptocracy.

I know that Democrats mouth have historically mouthed platitudes about looking after the “little guy”. I would like to think that only the truly moronic and armchair philosophers walled into their temples of abstract theory can fail to see how Orwellian and corrupting these platitudes are.

Have we as a nation arrived at a point where we can stop this from happening or is it inevitable? A Jewish relative once remarked that no Jew sleeps without two shoes under his bed stuffed with a roll of cash, in case of a quick getaway. I am starting to understand his point.

Political violence: from whence does it emanate

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” – President Barack Hussein Obama

I posted this as a comment to Book’s previous post, but have now posted it independently as a challenge to all of us Bookworm salon aficionados.

Here’s the premise: virtually all the political violence that has happened in America as come from people associated with the Democrat and/or the Left.

Here’s my list thus far (continuous updating):

DEMOCRAT /LEFT – LINKED VIOLENCE

  1. Mass. Sen. Charles Sumner beaten by S. Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks over perceived insults made in speech by Brooks (1856).
  2. John Wilkes Booth (anti-Republican Democrat) assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
  3. Southern night riders and the KKK during Reconstruction and into the mid-1900s. (Democrats) – question: do we count each of the lynchings as separate acts of violence?
  4. Chicago Haymarket riot (1886)
  5. Pres. McKinley’s 1901 assassination by Leon Frank Czolgosz (Leftwing anarchist)
  6. Sedition Act of 1918 by Woodrow Wilson (Progressive Democrat)
  7. Assassination attempt on FDR, killing Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, by Guiseppe Zangara in 1933 (left-wing anarchist)
  8. FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII (Democrat progressive)
  9. FALN attack against Pres. Harry Truman (communist)
  10. Sheriff Bull Connors, Gov. George Wallace (Democrats)
  11. John Kennedy’s assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (communist)
  12. Pres. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”
  13. 1968 Democrat Convention
  14. Robert Kennedy’s assassin Sirhan Sirhan (leftwing Palestinian supporter)
  15. Sarah Jane Moore’s attempted assassination of Pres. Gerald Ford
  16. Berkeley People’s Park riot in 1969 (campus socialists, communists and anarchists)
  17. Students for a Democratic Society aka SDS (communist)
  18. Bombing (1970) of Math Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison (anti-war communists)
  19. Symbionese Liberation Army (communists)
  20. American Indian Movement (AIM) killing of FBI agents at Wounded Knee (socialist American Indian activists)
  21. The Weathermen, incl. Dohrn and Ayers (communist)
  22. Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN bombings (communist)
  23. Black Panthers (Left-wing socialist/communist)
  24. James Jones of Jonestown fame (apostolic socialism)
  25. Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
  26. Attack on Branch Davidians (Janet Reno, Clinton Administration)
  27. Ted Kaczynski – Unabomber (leftwing anarchist and environmental fanatic, Gore acolyte)
  28. Left-wing violence, destruction and physical assaults at 1999 G-20 meeting in Seattle.
  29. Attack on Washington, D.C. Holocaust Memorial by James Wenneker von Brunn (anti-U.S. socialist sympathizer)
  30. Left-wing violence, destruction, physical assaults and weapons convictions at 2008 Republican Convention in Minneapolis.
  31. Joe Stack, Austin IRS bomber (anti-Republican, anti-capitalist, anti-wealthy people)
  32. Physical attacks on conservative speakers at university campuses
  33. Multiple physical attacks against Tea Party rallies by SEIU and others (2009).
  34. Shooting of pro-life demonstrator James Pouillon in Owosso, MI (2009)
  35. Physical assault by S. Carolina Rep. Bob Etheridge against student, caught on video.
  36. Discovery Center attack and hostage-taking by James Lee in Sept. 2010 (leftwing environmentalist)

REPUBLICAN, CONSERVATIVE – LINKED VIOLENCE

  1. John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry (?)
  2. Attacks on abortion clinics and murders and attempted murders of abortion providers (conservative Christian group-affiliated (?) individuals)
  3. Firearm attack by Jim D. Adkisson against Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, claiming opposition to its policies (2008)
  4. 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph (see “attacks on abortion clinics” above).

xxxxxxxxxxx

Please delete, amend or add-to the list as you see fit.

Or, let’s have even more fun: how about a comparable list of CONSERVATIVE acts of political violence?

We shall then be able to offer two lists for posterity.

Comments and contributions? Please make them as specific as possible.

UPDATE***

I have broken these out into two lists and will make additions as they come in.

UPDATE***

OK…I’m convinced. I’ve taken the Tuscon, Ariz. shooting off of the “Left” column.

How do we get out of this?

If the U.S. and our government were a business, we would already have been declared insolvent. Here’s why:

On our 2009 P/L (profit & loss) statement, our annual Federal expenditures amounted to about $3.5 trillion, against revenues (tax receipts) of $2.1 trillion. If history is guide, the $1.4 trillion gap between revenues and outlays will increase rather than decrease in subsequent years. Mind you, this is only at the Federal level…we haven’t included state and municipal financials, which add more black crepe to an already dismal picture.

How much could government revenues be expected to increase in order to plug this gap? The traditional conservative approach has been to grow the economy, using incentives: more growth = more profits = more tax revenues. The traditional Liberal/Left approach has been to increase taxes: more taxes = more government spending = more economic growth (!?).

In my view, we have traveled to a point far, far beyond these arguments: neither approach suffices.

The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or “gross sales revenues”, is approximately $15 trillion.
If the U.S. operated as a business, national disposable income (meaning, after-tax income, or “net income” on the P/L statement) approximates $10 trillion, according to Euromonitor.com [http://www.euromonitor.com/factfile.aspx?country=US].
This is the total money available to be recycled back into the economy by the private sector, either through direct purchases (income-stimulating reinvestments) or capital formation (savings and investments).
Now, to close the Federal revenue gap would in the most basic of terms require taking an additional $1.4 trillion (14%) -PLUS out of our national disposable income in the form of taxes. Why “plus”?
Because government isn’t efficient: any monies taken in by the Federal government are inevitably depleted as they cycle through various government agencies before they can reach their target.  Unlike electronic transfers between bank accounts, only a small fraction of tax receipts go to their intended target. The rest is lost through government overhead and waste (I repeat myself).Thus, it will take considerably more than $1.4 trillion in tax revenues to close a $1.4 trillion budget gap.
In response to the obvious question this raises: yes, we could borrow this, but all borrowing does is defer payment of this sum at a stiff price (i.e., interest).
Eventually, payments must come from disposable income.
Let’s consider the national balance sheet:

A first-rate article by Kevin Williamson in the National Review (June 21, 2010) catalogued our country’s debt obligations as follows:

1) National Debt – $14 trillion (Williamson argues that this is vastly understated due to “funny money” accounting by the government)

2) State and Local Debt – $2.5 trillion (which the Feds will ultimately absorb). According to some, we already face massive impending municipal bond failures.

3) Unfunded government worker pension funds (federal, state and local) – $3.0 trillion. In large part, these are “unfunded” because governments expropriated their assets by borrowed against them, my corrupted state of Illinois being a prime culprit. Directly or indirectly, this cost will eventually be absorbed by all taxpayers.

4) Unfunded liabilities for all of our nation’s “we care about you but want someone else to pay for it” programs  (i.e., Medi/Obamacare, “Pharmacare”, Medicaid and Social Security) – $106 trillion (using Present Value). According to Williamson, this is more-than twice the total private net worth of the U.S. Even if we all individually sold-off all of our belongings (assets), we still couldn’t cover these obligations.

So, in sum, we have a “business” (USA Inc.) with negative-$1.4 trillion in net revenues and a balance sheet debt of $125.5 trillion. Williamson adds in a few more odds and ends to round-up the value to $130 trillion. And we haven’t even touched corporate and consumer debt.
Hmmm…how about some perspective?
According to a McKinsey & Co. report, world financial assets in 2008 (prior to two subsequent years of asset deflation) totalled $178 trillion. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/gcm_sixth_annual_report/executive_summary.asp

I’ve looked long and hard for this number because it is admittedly “fuzzy math”, but the best estimate that I could come up for the total estimated tangible asset (book) value of the United States economy is $188 trillion. These are, for the most part, non-liquid assets…they cannot be simply sold off for cash-in-hand.

Source: http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/

In sum, USA, Inc. long ago exceeded its debt capacity.

As a bond holder of USA, Inc., would your next step be to:

a) invest in USA, Inc.

b) ask for a bankruptcy court to reorganize the corporation and restructure its debt obligations

c) liquidate and auction off its assets to cover its debt obligations to bond holders?

Ergo my conclusion: we are insolvent! There is no way that we will ever find the money to pay off these obligations. It just doesn’t exist, not within the U.S and not in the world economy. I anticipate option (b) — reorganization of debt. Of course, in this scenario, the shareholders (citizens, taxpayers) get left with crumbs (or “haircuts”, in financial parlance).

According to Democrat thinking processes, we should raise taxes. However, even doubling our total Federal, state and local tax receipts wouldn’t cover our income shortfall and debt service obligations, especially in the face of rising interest rates. Moreover, this  would crush the economy, ergo our ability to generate future tax revenues. It would kill the golden goose. In the meantime, the solution appears to be…print huge sums of money and get us into even more debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

Looking at the Republican approach, growing the economy by lowering tax rates buys time, but I don’t see how we could possibly grow the economy enough to dig us out of this hole…or is my imagination too limited? Brazil’s economy grew about 10% last year, but then their starting base was much lower. Maybe Rep. Paul Ryan sees it differently.

Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion: the large majority of us will end up absorbing significant haircuts to our asset holdings as part of our inevitable national  and economic debt restructuring. My vote for the most likely targets of restructuring are: a) public employee pension funds; b) social security and Obamacare benefits; c) bond holders, via a national default a-la-Argentina…all inclusive. Bernanke’s QE2 movement  signals that massive inflation is already in the works.

Each of these steps spells disaster. In my view, it’s not a question of “if” but “when”.

So, as we begin this New Year, what are your ideas as to how we can climb out of this hole?

Do we invest Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) with dictatorial powers in order to implement his road map? Is that enough? (note: this is tongue-in-cheek, for those of you that don’t know me).

What do you think will happen if public employee pension fund obligations are shaved to 25% or less of current obligations? Do we become another UK, France or Greece and descend into anarchy? How do we prevent this from happening?

Many of us Bookworm Room aficionados, from comments gathered over the years, are either in retirement or seriously planning retirement….how will we / should we and others of our generation react to massive cuts in Social Security and ObamaCare? I note that some 25-30% of adults approaching retirement age have supposedly accrued virtually no retirement savings and individual net worth is likely to continue to decline in tandem with housing values. Plus, leading members of the Democrat regime have already made it known that it would like to strip me and thee of any anticipated inheritance incomes. What is to happen to them (us)?

What happens if the U.S. defaults on its bond obligations?

Or, am I all wet in my analysis? Although I do boast a corporate-finance-related degree, I do not pretend to be anything other than a hobby economist. Please, oh please, convince me that I am totally wrong in my analysis.

For balance, I do not think the prognosis is all doom and gloom, although I believe that we are in for a very rough ride. Our country faced similar difficulties early in our history and we got through them. I think the party is over, but I also think we have the wherewithal to climb out of the mess all of us have created, even if we cannot yet discern the way out. I am trying to understand how best to weather the storm.

Either way, please share your thoughts.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Californians: Vote a straight Republican ticket

My friend Sally Zelikovsky says it in the clearest words possible:  Unless conservatives in California vote for the Republicans, we will have a Sacramento government made up entirely of San Francisco Democrats.  If that horrible outcome sounds painfully obvious to you, you don’t know California.

There are two dynamics in California that are a problem.  First, conservatives don’t like the Republican candidates.  (They’re right not to.  Fiorina is lovely — and may she get well soon — but the others are “eh” at best.)  This means California conservatives may be tempted to (a) sit this one out or (b) vote for a write-in or minor candidate.  Those are luxuries of ordinary elections, though.  In California, this election is not about a favored conservative candidate winning; it’s about making sure the Democratic candidate loses.  And the only way to do that is with vast numbers of votes for the Republican, even if that requires some nose holding.

The other dynamic is Prop. 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana.  Have you wondered by George Soros is promoting it?  Do you think George Soros gives a flying whatsit about whether Californians have legal marijuana?  I can assure you that he doesn’t.  But he knows one group that does care a great deal, and it’s a group that votes reliably Democrat:  young people.  Yup.  Prop. 19 is a “get out the youthful Democrat vote” effort.  This means that, while most young people around America are sitting out this election, there is a very good chance that California’s young people will be heading to the polls.

So if you’re a Californian, and you have memories, increasingly faint memories, of a true Golden State, VOTE and VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The die is cast Open Thread

It’s a done deal, awaiting Obama’s signature.   I am truly too disheartened to write anything tonight.

Please use this open thread to share your thoughts, provide insight and inspiration, give practical advice, etc. I’ve already received several emails from conservative groups (the GOP, Republican politicians, etc.) urging fund raising.  (Just FYI, in less than 1 hour, the GOP has already raised more than $86,000 in its 40 hour fund-raising drive towards a $402,010 goal.)

In the fall, we were disgusted with Republicans, and some of us, after the election said that they didn’t deserve money.  I think that they’ve gone a long way to redeeming themselves with this fight.  They showed remarkable cohesion, intelligence, and savvy.  With a single issue burning before them, the Republicans proved that they could fight the good fight, even if they lost the first big battle. 

Since this same single issue will be what unites Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents into the November election cycle, it is time for us to dig into our pockets and help out.  I know that I will.  Remember, the momentum is now, before we get resigned to a dismal, socialist status quo.

I’ll be back blogging sometime tomorrow, but for tonight I’m going to creep off and quietly mourn the end of the world as we know it.  In a day or two, I’ll be ready to come out swinging.

GOP, RINOS, and the Tea Party — by guest blogger W. H. Strom

First, this is what my background and has shaped my thinking, my starting point.  I am a hard line conservative.  I have been ever since gaining my maturity.  I am well educated, two master’s degrees, one in Strategic Intelligence.  I was born on the left coast, I am a practicing Christian, I live in Virginia, and was in the military (30 years) and a military contractor (10 years).  Now, why did I just bring all that up?  In my profession I have had to be an active listener.  First I flew fighter aircraft in combat and in opposition to the great USSR (Russia to the newbees) I had to know the world situation.  Later as an intelligence officer I changed my perspective somewhat, more toward learning what was going to happen in the near future.  I became very versed to situations and attitudes in the area of potential adversaries.

When you study potential adversaries motivations are as important, or more so, than capabilities.  The US military has sufficient wherewithal to destroy or damage most capability that our adversaries possess.  It’s the motivation that is the driving force.  As an intelligence officer and aircrew member, I was more than a little interested in the motivation of the people who were, occasionally, shooting at me.  After the wall fell, the intelligence game became much more difficult.  Instead of just one adversary, there was the potential of many.  Again, why do I bring this up?

I am “tuned in”, so to speak, to motivations and behavior.  I don’t much care about what people say as what they do.  What I have seen in the US Congress is that almost every time there is some great contentious bill come to vote, that vote is nearly always along party lines, regardless of “Blue Dogs” or “Moderate” Republicans. Witness the last Senate vote on health care, and several other like votes in 2009.  That was even more evident prior to the great upraising of the American public through such devices as the tea parties.

I just read the Wall Street Journal article on “Purity” tests.  I don’t like them.  Throughout my careers I have pretty much run my actions by “selective neglect”.  I do what I want of my superior’s wishes and ignore the rest.  I have been, on occasion, slapped down, but generally, I have had a relatively successful career.  There are others out there like me.  Locking someone up to a “test” to a list of values, of which some may vary in the next few years, does not seem like a good idea.  If there were to be a “Purity” test, it should be broad: defend the constitution; kill political correctness in all its varied guises; support a strong defense; really understand and expose the roots of  the Muslim religion; stand by our allies; and let freedom reign.

Third parties cannot win.  They are too small, take votes from a larger party and let someone in without a majority (Clinton’s first win).  It takes several elections to take over one of the top two.  In the mean-time, the left will smash this country.  What has started, and what we need to continue, is a redefinition of the Republican Party.  I am a George W. Bush admirer, but he let some stuff slip by in his last year in office, perhaps to salvage a “historical” view of his presidency.  Had I gone through the eight years he did, my sanity would also be questioned, but some attitudes and decisions must be reversed.  Goldwater did it for us in 1964, it’s time again.

I like Tea Parties.  It started out as a movement and needs to stay that way.  If it becomes a party it is very possible that much of its efforts will go toward maintaining its status.  That is a killer.  So, let’s all calmly look at the big picture.  Ultimately it comes down to how many Ds and Rs there are in Congress.  I vote for Rs.  I don’t much care if they are RINOS (as long as there are no good conservatives running).  I definitely do not vote for any Ds, regardless of how well they campaign, witness the last Presidential election and the Senatorial election here in Virginia a few years before that.  I only care about results, and Rs are much more likely to vote the way I want them than Ds.  Let’s not cut our own throats.  Nothing is done in a day or even in an election cycle.  Let’s get involved in the GOP and revolt from within if we don’t like what we see.  And for God’s Sake, let’s get out from under the elitist Northeasterners.

I am like the commenter I saw at this blog earlier:  I voted for Palin.  I like my politics sweet and simple, no secrets.  Whether Sarah can get an adequate staff together and overcome what the MSM has done to here, I don’t know, but now she is my template for a solid conservative people’s candidate.  If you don’t like my choice, that’s OK.  I will go along with the majority, unlike the members of the Democrat Party (I just can’t call them democratic).

Last comment: We must keep the pressure on.  Yes it was great to elect Senator Brown of Massachusetts, but remember, he is an eastern Republican.  He has stated that he could vote with the Democrats on some issues.  He is not Reagan, Palin, or even Gingrich.  We must continue to push the events of the past year, keep it in the news so the massive Democrat public relations campaign which has started doesn’t pervert the great uninterested public.

Summary: The GOP, along with all the RINOS who will play with us, needs to merge with the tea partiers and present a united front.  We need to keep the momentum going and not allow the 50 to 60 percent of the American public, who really don’t pay attention to politics, to forget the horrible fate that almost befell us.

W. H. Strom
Conservative

Why Scott Brown’s election is so inordinately important *UPDATED*

Thinking about it, Scott Brown’s election as the Senator for Massachusetts may be more significant than any election in my lifetime, including the Reagan Revolution and the 1994 Congressional takeover.  I know this sounds silly.  In 1980, the political shift involved a President, not a mere Senator; in 1994, it was an entire Congress, not just a single Senator.  The thing with the previous elections, though, was that they represented the usual pendulum of politics.  Of course, that pendulum shift is going on here too, although it’s significant how quickly the pendulum swung.  This unusually swift voter backlash — in Massachusetts yet! — has to do with the fact that (a) voters have come to realize that Obama lied to them consistently about his political beliefs, going far beyond the puffery that is normative for political campaigns and (b) voters are seeing that unlimited one party rule is precisely as dangerous as the Founders feared it would be.  Still, the back and forth of political winds is nothing new.

What is new is that Scott Brown represents the first populist candidate in my lifetime.  As you recall, the Republican machine tried to ignore him.  It was the people, galvanized by the internet, who elevated this campaign from a simple regional special election to a national referendum on the White House and Congress.

Nor can the power of people on the internet be discounted by saying “Well, it was Obama who first ran the perfect internet campaign.”  While it’s true that he used the internet as a good fundraiser (although I believe I read that most of his money ultimately came from big bundlers), the campaign simply used the internet as another means of disseminating information from the top down and raising money from the bottom up.  It was all very centralized.

The difference with Scott Brown’s campaign is that the internet did not function from the top down.  Instead — and here’s the staggering thing — it functioned from the bottom up.  This was the first big win of the Army of Pajama-clad Davids. The internet finally fulfilled the grassroots political promise all of us were expecting to see.

Think about it:  Brown leaped to national prominence because his “It’s the people’s seat” went viral on the internet.  He stayed in the public eye because bloggers and emailers everywhere spread the news.  It was the internet functioning from the bottom up that enabled him to raise more than $1,000,000 in a single day, in donations averaging $77 each.  In other words, not only did Scott Brown win “the people’s seat,” as opposed to the Kennedy Seat, for the first time in my lifetime, we also had the people’s candidate.  This should shake them up, not only at the DNC, but at the RNC too.

All of this, of course, was helped by Scott Brown himself.  The increasing unpopularity of health care and the Democrats’ other big-government initiatives, combined with an appallingly bad candidate, might have been enough for a squeaker, with Brown sneaking into the Senate seat under a cloud of recounts and recriminations.  Brown, however, put the thing over the top.  He proved to be an unusually deft and sophisticated candidate, who handled his sudden appearance on the national scene with great aplomb.  He managed to maintain an intelligent focus on the issues, all the while projecting a warm, folksy populism.  It didn’t hurt that he’s physically attractive.  In a media age, people would rather look at Brown than at Reid.  The question now, of course, is whether he’s a perpetual candidate, a la the increasingly weary and wearisome Obama, or if there’s substance behind the image.  I would like to think we’re seeing a new Republican star being born here.

I also hope that Brown manages to remain grounded.  The sudden wave of adulation can be very heady stuff.  Someone who is weak could easily start discounting both the public mood and the horrible Coakley as factors in the election, and begin to think “it’s all about me.”  My friends and I don’t think Brown shows any signs of narcissism, but I’m still nervous.  Fame is dangerous.

UPDATEMore details about the true grassroots nature of Brown’s victory.

UPDATE IIMore evidence (do we still need it?) that Brown’s victory came from below, not above.  Wheeee!!!  The people!

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/social-networking-key-to-browns-success/

The ultimate Democratic anti-Brown ad *UPDATED*

It’s only because it’s just a wee bit more over the top than the real things that you can tell it’s satire:

Big hat tip to The New Editor

UPDATE:  The above video represents fake Democrats (read:  “Republican satirists”) in action.  Nothing, of course, can compare to the real deal, who are so over-the-top that Scott Brown has been forced to file criminal charges against them (presumably for election fraud).

UPDATE II:  And in the media, real Democrats actively encourage voter fraud.

Open thread centered around a very important question

The holidays continue to make demands on me that take me away from my beloved computer and my blog.  I’ve managed to track enough news, though, to know that Reid managed to get his vote.  My question for you, and one I can’t answer myself, is this:

Will the health care bill, even if it destroys the current crop of Democrat politicians, be an unstoppable juggernaut that will inevitably lead to socializing America, or is this bill the final straw on the electorate’s groaning back that will lead to the revitalization of conservatism in America?

I’d like to think the second but, given the Republican party’s profound ineptitude and ideological weakness, I think Republicans are going to take lemonade and manage to reconstitute it as rotten, sour, unpalatable lemons.

***

As I finished typing the last paragraph, I got an email from Rob, at JoshuaPundit, with a link to his post about the dangers of despair:

Part of what fuels decadence (and eventual destruction and defeat) is the belief that everything is rotten beyond repair, so why even try anymore? If enough people feel that way, then they contribute to the defeat and it’s over. So it’s important to act with optimism and positive energy even when it seems hopeless.

One of the things that surprised me in reading Winston Churchill’s history of World War II is how frequently he succumbed to despair during the run-up to the Second World War when he could see where things were headed, and afterward,when he finally took power and the Nazis were expected to invade at any moment.

Sir Winston referred to these periods of depression as ‘the black dog’…but he made a point of never sharing these emotions with anyone, and indeed made a point of acting especially cheery and unperturbed when things seemed darkest. And there were plenty of such moments.

He understood instinctively one of William James’ basic principles of psychology, that moods are infectious and affect others and that a positive attitude, even a partially feigned one, can have positive results.

And there are positive results to be had. We have a country to win, and one that’s worth fighting for.

Please read the rest of Rob’s post.  It will make you feel better, as it made me feel better.  We have a wonderful country, and we cannot and should not give up!

Some Republican lawmakers are standing up for the SEALS

Mudville Gazette reports that some Republican lawmakers haven’t forgotten the three SEALS facing court-martial for having given a fat lip to a suspected Al Qaeda murderer during his arrest.

This is no little thing.  SEALS are the creme de la creme of our military forces.  If they’ve done wrong, that’s one thing.  But if they haven’t, if these man are being pilloried and their careers destroyed because the military is yielding to the Left’s demand that it become a warm, cuddly, friendly force that doesn’t offend people in Leftist designated victim classes, what’s happening now is a travesty and a horror.

We need to pay attention.  Or, as that hoary old Leftist, Arthur Miller, said in his dreary polemic, Death of a Salesman:  “Attention must be paid.”

The new Republican playbook

In the wake of the 2008 election, Republicans and conservatives were paralyzed.  They’d been trounced, not so much by sweeper percentages (that is, the elections were all just over the slightly 50% mark), but by huge numbers of elections in which Democrats edged out Republicans by those few percentage marks.  If there are 100 races, and you lose 90 of them, it’s really irrelevant whether you lost by 5% or by 30%.  You still lost big across the board.  What to do?  What to do?

Fortunately, adversity has a way of clearing out the deadwood and clarifying the issues.  We know that Barack Obama is anti-American in ideology and that he hates America as a practical matter.  We know that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of advisers and czars who share his views, and that the top echelons in Congress do too.  It’s all spread out before us.

With the malignant disease of rampant anti-American Leftism — a world view antithetical to an increasing number of Americans — finally diagnosed in Washington, Jennifer Rubin has the prescription:

Now it has unfolded. We know what Obamaism looks like. On the domestic side, it is liberal statism: higher taxes, mammoth bureaucracies, and a vortex of government regulation that sucks up private enterprise and transforms business decisions into political ones. It comes with an ungracious and sneering contempt for opposition. On the international scene, we have the intersection of incompetence and folly, with a strong element of cynicism. The Obami have deployed aggressive and losing gambits (Honduras and the Middle East), betrayed friends (Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic), snubbed allies (the Churchill bust goes home), thrown ourselves at the feet of adversaries (Russia, Iran), jettisoned human rights and the defense of democracy (Burma, Sudan, Iran), projected angst-ridden indecision (Afghanistan-war formulation), damaged our fighting ability (defense cuts and missile-defense withdrawal), and shown deference to debased institutions (the UN). Most alarmingly, Obama and his attorney general have scarred and scared our intelligence community and placed Lefty pie-in-the-sky moralizing above the safety of Americans (trying KSM, closing Guantanamo, and halting enhanced interrogations).

And so what should conservatives be doing? Well now it’s obvious — oppose, obstruct, warn, and cajole. There aren’t many weapons at conservatives’ disposal, but there are some. And the greatest is to be found in the reservoir of common sense and decency of the America people, who, when stirred, have risen up to oppose pernicious legislation and those whom they mistakenly trusted to behave in a responsible fashion. As Kristol points out, three years is a long time, but the congressional elections are approaching and the argument has begun. And now conservatives know precisely what must be done: as best they are able, slow and stop Obamaism until reinforcements arrive and the voters can render their verdict.

To which I’ll add Bruce Kesler’s reminder, in the context of Obama’s insane nuclear strategy, that we should “Be afraid. Be very afraid. Be aware, and more determined than ever to slow and halt this self-destruction in the elections of 2010 and 2012. Start by demanding that potential Republican challengers are informed and resolute, and don’t ignore the saner Democrats. We’re all in this together.”

Re ACORN: What did the press know and when did it know it?

At Big Government today, Evan Coyne Maloney, another of the young conservative guns who uses modern media techniques to bring down Democratic dinosaurs, asks how it is that the media completely missed the ACORN scandal.  Maloney thinks that political correctness created the blinders media figures wore.  To the extent that ACORN is a black organization that services mostly black constituents, reporters simply were unable to make themselves say the unsayable to the American public — that it is corrupt through and through.  I think Maloney’s article is definitely worth reading, because he’s right about the media’s inability to get beyond its assumption that people of color and other “disadvantaged” people are always correct.  It’s the media’s own court of law:  innocent until proven guilty, except that we’ll never try to prove you guilty.

There is, however, a strong possibility that, as to ACORN, Maloney is being too generous when he ascribes the mental rot of political correctness to the journalistic class as a way of excusing their gross malfeasance.  Michael P. Tremoglie, who tried to break the ACORN scandal before Obama’s election, has no doubt but that the media’s wall of silence was a deliberate effort on their part to ensure that their candidate of choice would not be derailed (h/t Zhombre):

No one should believe that the liberal mainstream media “missed” the most recent ACORN scandal. They did not “miss it.”

When I broke the news on March 30 about the New York Times spiking the information they had about ACORN working with the Obama campaign (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/30/top_stories/doc49d0a73c7f98e547489394.txt), it went national, like the current scandal, only because of the Fox News Channel and talk radio.

I was working as a journalist for the Philadelphia Bulletin* at the time. An ACORN whistleblower said that the NY Times reporter to whom she had been feeding information to about ACORN told her the editors did not want to use information about collusion between ACORN and the Obama campaign. The editors said it could be a “game changer” – meaning adversely affecting Obama’s campaign.

What’s even worse, because we’ve long suspected that the modern media shapes elections, is the scathing indictment Tremoglie levels at the Republicans:  they were complicit, because they were afraid they’d be called racists.  In other words, it wasn’t media political correctness that kept the lid on the story, it was Republican political correctness.

Republicans continue to confound me with their stupidity when it comes to labels.  They haven’t figured out that, no matter what they do, the MSM will tar them as racist, sexist, homophobic warmongers.  If you’re going to be lambasted anyway, at least do something principled to earn the name-calling from your political enemies.  Instead, though, the Republicans always fall meekly in line, and then preserve a gentlemanlike silence when their “good intentions” are ignored, and the insults come flying anyway.

Matt Burden (Blackfive) is running in Illinois

If you’re a conservative who’s been out in the internet for any length of time, you know Matt Burden, of Blackfive.  Matt has always served his country, first as an Airborne soldier, and lately as a voice for conservative and military thought in the ever-more important blogosphere.  Matt is now making the leap to the next level of service, as he is running for the Illinois House of Representatives.  Matt’s feeling is that, as the National election has put us at the mercy of the worst Illinois politics has to offer, it’s up to Illinois to start serving up the best.

Unlike the last round of Illinois politicians, about whom we knew little (and the more we know, the less we like), Matt is an open book.  His service and his beliefs are there for everyone to see — and, I hope, for most to appreciate.

Because his personality and his beliefs speak for themselves, Matt really only has one major hurdle to cross, and for that he needs your help.  Yup, folks, at the end of the day, it’s always about money.  No matter how good your message, if you’re unable to reach the voters, you may as well sit in a dark closet and twiddle your thumbs.  If you are interested in supporting Matt’s candidacy, whether or not you live in Illinois, you can go here.  I suspect I speak for Matt when I say that no donation is too small.

Good luck, Matt.  I’m rooting for you!

GOP fails to connect with its base

We knew this, but C. Edmund Wright sums it up as pithily as anything I’ve ever seen.  In explaining why Democrats have been winning  since 2006, despite the fact that America is a conservative country, Wright points out that Democrats agree with their representatives, while conservatives consistently find Republican politicians too liberal.  The result?

There is a huge disconnect between the GOP and its voters on the one hand, while the DNC and its elected leaders are right in step with their voting base by comparison. Thus the DNC runs more dynamic and successful campaigns while the RNC thrashes about trying to figure out where they went wrong.

Five people in a kitchen — by guest blogger Danny Lemieux

Five People in a Kitchen

By Danny Lemieux

Part I: We need focus!

We were just five concerned Americans meeting in a middle class Chicagoland suburb on a cold spring day. Our point for this meeting was not to gripe. It was to see if we could identify constructive solutions to the Democrat Left’s hold on our nation and all that for which it stands . . . a hold that we are convinced will destroy us.

We addressed two big challenges: (1) how do we counter the very effective (thug, smear, demagogue…fill in the blank, here) tactics of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a book conceived in the 20th Century’s fascist era, consecrated in the radical ‘70s, and aptly dedicated to “Lucifer” by its author one year before his death in 1972 (whereupon, we can only surmise that the author was promptly and personally thanked for his dedication). Among all other “how to” guides available to 20th Century fascists, this was the tome chosen as the working bible of the American radical Left.  As we’ve seen, it works.  And (2), given its effectiveness, how do we prepare ourselves for the next election?

Why the next election? Because, quite frankly, given the Alinsky-driven fraud, manipulation, fear tactics, illegal funding and demagoguery evident in the last election, we five agreed that this next election may well be our last truly free election for a very, very long time. Moreover, the next time around, ACORN will enjoy a multi-billion dollar war chest, expropriated from me, thee and other productive taxpayers by the parasitic classes in our society. The opposition will also enjoy the full force of government power to leak dirt, real or imagined, disclose divorce files and other legal documents, and intimidate and harass the opposition. Despite the title of Alinsky’s book, there really are no rules, only tactics and objectives. Think of the persons that trashed pregnant teen Bristol Palin; torched Sarah Palin’s church with kids inside; wished failed kidneys upon Rush Limbaugh; slashed campaign bus tires in Milwaukee; did opposition research on a citizen-plumber; or unsealed the Court-sealed divorce papers of Obama’s Senate opponent, Jack Ryan. Something truly wicked this way comes.

As I noted, we were only five – three men and two women: two business consultants, one nurse, a graphics designer and a furniture maker – a perfect number for intense, serious discussion. For my fellow Bookworm groupies, our dear Deana was there. If labels are necessary, I’d characterize my illustrious guests as libertarian and conservative…Tea Party types. Some of us, in our younger days, had been Liberal and Democrat before we finally grew up…including (mea culpa!) me, moi and myself. My hope is that this was only one of millions of such meetings that have been and will take place all around our country leading up to 2010.

The first step we took was to define the problem…to frame the issues.

We took stock of our situation. We all agreed that America is an exceptional country that has been a terrific force for good to its own citizens and round the world. We all agreed that this era is ending and we really don’t like this. But for now, we still aren’t quite sure how to resist and reverse the surging tide. Our collective forecast was grim: we agreed that our country is likely to go bankrupt the way of Argentina or stagnate the way of Japan. We agreed that we are likely to soon find ourselves in a war . . . a major war. Why? Because as people who study the lessons of history, we are doomed to watch others repeat them and that one very salient lesson of history is that weakness invites attack. It’s the way of the world . . . the real world, not the abstract perceptions of American Liberal middle-and-upper- class utopia. There’s already blood in the water.

Then we defined the objectives.

We have a little less than 18 months to prepare for the next election.

Gauging from the last election, we probably don’t need to change that many minds. Obama’s margin of victory was about 10 million votes out of 69 million cast in his name. If we exclude those that voted Democrat because they were mad at GW or scared witless about the economy’s meltdown (let no crisis go to waste!), then we probably only need to sway about two-to-three million extra votes in key strategic areas. Although the Democrat Left has been very clever to schedule their massive tax and spend programs so that most of the pain will not be felt until after the 2010 elections, I doubt that they will be successful. As usual, they bank on a static world whereas everything is very much in flux. The pain is coming much faster than anticipated. Markets are forward looking and will react accordingly to the oncoming tsunami of debt and taxation. Our nation’s credit rating is already in question. Jobs will continue to be lost and (big) international mistakes will continue to be made. So, I think that we can safely expect disgruntlement to be at minimum at a low boil by 2010.

Plus, consider market segmentation.

We (all of us) only have limited resources to expend, so we need to expend them efficiently. We could go after the broad segment of the population that voted for Obama, or we could focus on the most likely converts. Let’s consider who voted for Obama:

In one group we have the true believers – the hard core leftists, the MoveOn.org, MSNBC and Huffington Post crowd. They wallow in an alternate universe of bile, violence, hatred and perceptions and values that can never be reconciled with objective reality. They are, at their core, utopians who rage against the failings of a reality-based universe when in reality they rage against themselves and the unrequited wounds of troubled upbringings. As per the parable of the sower, this is rocky soil that can bear no fruit.

The second group is the group that simply fell in love with Obama, our Rorschach President. They love his voice, they love his demeanor and they love his looks and they hear only what they wanted to hear as they project their wants and needs upon him. This, folks, is Oprah-world. It’s a waste of time. These are the frivolous people whose waters will never run deep. These are the people that take their cues from daytime TV, Letterman, Olbermann and SNL and company. Don’t get me wrong, IQ has nothing to do with this: I know quite a few otherwise intelligent people that fall into this category, the MSM “intellectual” class being a case in point. We can’t waste our time and effort on these people…these are dead leaves blowing endless circles in the winds of hype.

The third group is the only one that matters.

These are the core value Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, the traditional value, blue-dog Democrats. They may have fundamental disagreements with Republicans (or what they think Republicans represent), the demonized “Christian Right” (oooo…let’s all look under our beds now!) and what they perceive us to be as “conservatives”, but their own values are, at heart, basically conservative. Most in this group are middle working class. Some are plumbers, others truckers (if I have learned anything from talk radio, it is that some of our most perceptive political thinkers are truckers). Many are black and Hispanic. Most work hard, enjoy normal family activities, worry about their kids and frankly don’t think too hard about politics until they have to. In sum, most lead healthy, balanced lives defined by by solid work ethics and values. They are fundamentally decent people. These, my friends, are America’s Hobbits…what one wizard referred to as an incredible repository of strength…once they are engaged. These are voters, under the constant onslaught of the MSM, who have not had the time or opportunity to hear or understand different points of view. These tend to be deeply patriotic Americans who have ample reason to distrust State power and have ample reason to be concerned about the future. They will awaken, of that I am sure.

This is our target market. And, remember…we only need to sway two or three million of them to share our perspectives on the world. We can do this.

Coming soon — How do we effectively change minds?

Channeling Mark Steyn

Okay, so it took me three as many words, and about two thirds less elan, but I think I said here, exactly the same thing Mark Steyn says here about Colin Powell (including the Woodward snipe and the mourning for those poor Kurds Powell betrayed):

Is conservatism over?

Well, of course it is. Everyone from James Carville to Colin Powell says so. “The Republican party is in deep trouble,” General Powell told some group willing to pay him serious money to deliver this kind of incisive insight. “Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans want more government in their lives, not less.”

Whether or not they want it, they’re certainly going to get it. And if you like big government now, just think how big it’ll be once both parties are fully signed up to the concept. You’ll recall that General Powell voted for Barack Obama, coming out and publicly stiffing his “beloved friend” John McCain, after years of more discreetly stiffing (in leaks to Bob Woodward and others) his not-so-beloved colleagues in the Bush administration. But, in fairness to the former secretary of state, his breezy endorsement of more government and more taxes is as near as we’ve ever got to a coherent political philosophy from him. If the GOP refuses to take his advice, I would urge him to run a third-party campaign on this refreshingly candid platform.

One of Powell’s more famous utterances was his rationale, after the 1991 Gulf War, for declining to involve the U.S. military in the Balkans: “We do deserts, we don’t do mountains.” Actually, by that stage, the U.S. barely did deserts. The first President Bush’s decision, at Powell’s urging, not to topple Saddam but to halt the coalition forces at the gates of Baghdad sent the world a message about American purpose whose consequences we live with to this day. As for the Kurds and Shiites to whom it never occurred that the world’s superpower would assemble a mighty coalition for the purpose of fighting half a war to an inconclusive conclusion, Saddam quickly took a bloody revenge: That’s an interesting glimpse of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Colin Powell’s much-vaunted “moderation.”

Intellectually, I feel as if I’m in august company.

Of course, having briefly made the right point about Powell’s bona fides (or lack thereof) when it comes to criticizing Republicans, Steyn goes on to do something I didn’t do, which is to discuss the process conservatives are going through as they lick their wounds and prepare to fight future battles.  Am I being redundant, given that this is a Mark Steyn article, if I recommend that you read the rest of it?

Reports of our deaths may be somewhat exaggerated

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article today touting the demise of the GOP in California:

With their registrations sinking and their political clout withering, California Republicans have come out of the November election in danger of slipping into political irrelevance across much of the state.

[snip]

Since 2004, Republican registration has dropped by more than 317,000 in the state, while Democrats have picked up 563,000 new voters. Five previously GOP counties, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus and San Bernardino, now have more Democrats than Republicans.

You can read the rest here, which discusses the numbers, and which also has some quotations from Republicans pointing out that the 2008 blow-out could have been worse, so things aren’t that bad.

Certainly Republicans aren’t doing well in California.  In the last two decades, California has gone from being the most reliably Republican of states to being an equally reliably Democratic state.  And as the article notes, a lot of very conservative counties have switched political allegiances.  I just wonder if Republicans are quite as dead as the Chron announces (and seems to hope is true).

The reason for my suspicion that conservativism in California is very sick but not dead yet and, perhaps, not even fatally ill, is what I see going on in Marin:  Conservatives, tired of being treated like second, third or fourth class citizens, are starting to congregate.  The party I described the other day is a perfect example of a grassroots conservative movement that’s bypassing the Republican party entirely.  Whether we’ll eventually join up with traditional Republicanism remains unclear, but we’re out there and we’re not inclined to walk away from the political fray.

I’d also like to see a study showing the growth rate for registered Independent voters in California.  What I’ve learned, both from my own experience, and from listening to other neocons, is that we new conservatives are not inclined to register as Republicans.  Instead, we tick off the Independent box.

There are, I think, three reasons for the reluctance to become registered Republicans.  First, as neocons, we don’t necessarily buy into the entire Republican package, and don’t want to give it our wholehearted imprimatur by identifying ourselves as such.  (As for me, I’d register Libertarian if it weren’t for the fruitcake factor and Ron Paul.)

Second, as lifelong Democrats, it’s hard to see an “R” after our names.  Independent is an almost sexy compromise, one that signals a break with the Democratic party without actually crossing the line into the former enemy’s camp.

And third, with the internet, which makes it easy for friends and neighbors to find out your party affiliation, even if they wasn’t what they were searching for when they plugged your name into Google, registering as an Independent helps preserve political privacy, especially if the neocon is not yet ready to face the opprobrium that comes with an ideological realignment.

I certainly hope that the Chron’s article is both exaggerated and premature.  Still, it makes important points that conservatives (not Republicans, but conservatives) should take seriously, and reminds us all that we have an awful lot to do in California over the next few years.

Keep your mouth shut when you talk about Obama

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is now accusing Republicans of speaking “code” to make racist remarks about Obama:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius accused Republicans on Tuesday of injecting race into the presidential campaign, arguing that they are using “code language” to convince Midwesterners that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them.”Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked with sarcasm. “(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness.”

Sebelius was responding to a question from the audience at the Iowa City Public Library about the tenacity of Democrats and whether they would fight for victory as hard as Republicans in the closing weeks of the election.

She did not elaborate on her comment.

It’s another of those lovely false syllogisms emanating from the Left.  This one is pretty special in that it is not only false in its construction, but also false in its premises.

Here’s how it goes:  Conservatives are racists; conservatives are saying mean things (not racial things, just mean things) about Obama; Obama is black; therefore those means things are implicitly racist, regardless of whether they’re explicitly racist.

End result:  any negative thing Republicans say about Obama — he’s a community organizer, his tax plan will bankrupt the US economy, his ears are big, he tried to sell Iraq and America out to Al Qaeda to win the election, he intentionally used “pig” and “lipstick” in the same sentence knowing that his acolytes would make the connection with Palin — anything like that is ipso facto racist, because any criticism of Obama is racist, because Obama is black and conservatives are racists.

Did you get that?  If you didn’t, believe me, over the next 49 days you’ll have lots of chances to have that lesson in reinforced.  After all,  assuming that Republicans have learned their PC lesson and shy away from any hints of being (God forbid!) racists, they’ll shut up every time that slur is levied against them.

By the way, let me remind you all that I am a racist, and pretty damn proud of it too.  Those words are as true today as they were when I wrote them this past June.

Trying to fool all of the people all of the time

I periodically check out Yahoo’s most popular news to see what AP articles are getting the most play according to the Yahoo picks (which, except for including Ann Coulter, skew liberal).  It’s fascinating to see the AP headlines, each of which is snarky, dismissive or critical of Palin in some way, even the “positive” ones:

  1. Palin provides a “perfect populist pitch” — While it’s true that “populism” can simply mean “appealing to the people,” it also has a more negative connotation:  “any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.”  I leave it to you to decide which meaning the AP headline writer had in mind.  As it happens, the article is flattering.
  2. Attacks praise, stretch truth at GOP convention — Translation:  the GOP people lied.
  3. Palin:  Iraq war “a task that is from God” — And remember, don’t get so carried away with her rhetoric that you forget that she’s a religious fanatic who will listen to the voices in her head to take us into war.
  4. Analysis:  GOP contradicts self on Palin family — We’re all hypocrites.
  5. Few minorities on GOP platform — We’re racist pigs, too.  (I don’t think the AP et al realize how frustrating it is to conservatives that the Democrats have locked down minorities despite the fact that conservatives firmly believe that minorities would benefit more if they could shake off the liberal shackles of victimhood.)
  6. Cindy McCain parts with Palin on abortion, sex ed — Watch out:  There’s division in the ranks at the highest level.  (Or, more optimistically, maybe we conservatives are a Big Tent.)

Perhaps the above headlines might explain the latest Rasmussen poll, which is headlined thusly:  Poll:  51 percent say reporters are trying to hurt Palin.

Let me leave you with Abraham Lincoln’s words:  “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Those renegade Republicans

Joe Lieberman has been persona non grata for pal-ing around with the Republicans, but the media was incredibly excited to discover that a few “leading” Republicans have moved over to the Obama side — as if nobody has ever heard of RINOs in the first place.  Aside from the fact that these RINOs are leaders only if you’re on the Democratic side of the aisle, the New York Sun has discovered something else that binds these “leaders” together — they’re all hostile to Israel.

Obama, with his “say anything and everything to anybody and everybody” approach to getting elected, has made the right noises about Israel (although those noises have been diluted by lies or abject, weaseling reversals).  It’s become increasingly apparent, though, that just as one wolf can sniff out the other wolf hiding under the wool in the midst of the flock, the anti-Israel cadre is finding its own.  How else to explain that this man is garnering increasingly vocal and visible support from every corner of the anti-Israel world?

If you’re a Jew and you care about Israel, don’t listen to what Obama says.  Look at those who flock to his banner.  Then start wondering what he and his advisors are saying to them, not in the blaze of the cameras, but in private.

Conservative politics in a nutshell

Thanks to ex cathedra, I’ve learned that the guy in that fun video in my post yesterday has prepared a tighter video statement of his conservative beliefs:

In commenting on the video, USMaleSF notes that he agrees with the conservative principles, but not the Republican party affiliation.  I understand that attitude.  Conservatism is a belief system, which is nice and pure.  The Republican party is a political entity, peopled with fallible humans.

In the past several years, those same fallible humans have fallen away from pure conservative principles –  they’ve been corrupt, profligate and, often, cowardly.  However, they are the political party that still hews closest to those principles, especially in this fight against Obama.  That’s why, rather than calling myself a conservative Republican, I would say that I’m a conservative who votes Republican.

This isn’t necessarily good news for the Dems *UPDATED*

There’s a rather excited headline in today’s NY Times:

GOP Drops in Voting Rolls in Many States

You can just hear the huzzahs all over liberal households in America:  “Republicans are vanishing.  The Dems are getting stronger.”  Well, maybe.

There’s something interesting, though, in the very first paragraph of that same story (emphasis mine):

For more than three years starting in 2005, there has been a reduction in the number of voters who register with the Republican Party and a rise among voters who affiliate with Democrats and, almost as often, with no party at all.

I’m one of those “no party at all” people.  Because of the way in which information about me is available to everyone on the internet, not to mention the fact that the post office sometimes delivers my mail to my neighbors and vice versa, when I decided to abandon the Democratic party, I didn’t necessarily want to telegraph that move to everyone and his uncle.  I also enjoyed the feeling of becoming unfettered from one party, and didn’t necessarily feel like becoming immediately leg-shackled to another one.  I therefore registered as an Independent.  I felt (and still feel) free.  I periodically mean to re-register as a Republican because of the primaries, but just can’t make myself do so.  I like not being locked into a party.

Given the libertarian instincts that characterize many conservatives, as well as their fear in Blue neighborhoods of being investigated by their neighbors, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m not the only conservative out there who is doing an “Independent” or “decline to state” registration.  Certainly the fact that there were a lot more Republican votes in Marin last election than there were Republican voters hints at the fact that those who have opted for apparent neutrality are, in fact, conservative.  Or perhaps, they are genuinely neutral and, when they analyze the facts available during any given election cycle, the Republican position strikes them as more rational and vote-worthy.

I’m not denying the fact that the Republican brand is in deep doo-doo.  Republicans have been wasteful with taxpayer resources, and extraordinarily cowardly when it came to advancing conservative principles.  These are the kind of political failures that will turn aside both fair weather friends and, worse, deeply committed party members.

Nevertheless, I continue to wonder whether the voter rolls and the manifest disdain voters feel for Republicans will have as huge an impact in November as the MSM keeps saying it will.  We’ve seen before that the MSM is as optimistic about potential Democratic victories as I am being here about potential Republican voters.  In other words, the MSM analysis may be right, but only up to a point.  It leaves out, for example, the fact that, while Americans may have soured on Republicans, they are even more soured on the Democratic Congress — which has hit popularity lows only the most reviled kid in high school can imagine.

I’m not a betting woman, but I would be willing to bet that this coming election will be more of the same:  neither the massive victory the Democrats hope, nor the horrible rout Republicans fear.  Instead, we’ll just putter on with a slight Democratic majority in Congress and, God willing, a Republican in the White House.

UPDATEHere’s some concrete evidence that voters may succumb to a plague on both your houses approach to the elections, which simply to my mind means more of the status quo.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound? *UPDATED*

You’ve all heard the question that is the title of my post, haven’t you?  Is an audience necessary for a sound to have meaning or even existence? And what if, in our world, the intermediary to the audience bugs out?  That’s today’s question, as Republicans vigorously debate the new drilling despite the fact that, Pelosi shut down the House, turned off the lights, and sent all her Democrats home.  And with the lights and mikes off, the media has mostly gone home, except those who try to display it, not as an act of substantive importance, but one of conservative silliness.

It seems to me though, in the wonderful world of the internet, we have the perfect opportunity to defang the MSM once and for all.  Go to the same Politico post to which I linked above, which describes what’s going on, and email it to your friends, and post it on your blogs, and talk about it to people.  In this Brave New Internet World, the MSM doesn’t have to be there; we the American people can be there instead.

To get you started, here is some of the Politico coverage:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House and turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi’s refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m. and are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on, and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one is witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.

Only about a half-dozen Republicans were on the floor when this began, but the crowd has grown to about 20 now, according to Patrick O’Connor.

“This is the people’s House,” Rep, Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said. “This is not Pelosi’s politiburo.”

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

“You’re not covering this, are you?” complaing one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans “morons” for staying on the floor.

The Politico story is exciting, too, because in a series of updates it’s clear that the Republicans are becoming more energized and the Dems more angry.  Keep in mind that the Dems and the Republicans know that the vast majority of Americans, tired of seeing their energy bills climb needlessly, are in favor of drilling.

UPDATE:  Finally, some live (ish) video.  Hat tip to the Anchoress, who is blogging about this here.

At long last, the Republicans are showing some mojo.  Let’s give them our help by keeping this a talking-point.

Flopping Aces is blogging too (and has a great cartoon).